Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Will Dean back off on his "repealing middle class tax cuts" position?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:23 PM
Original message
Will Dean back off on his "repealing middle class tax cuts" position?
Due to this shitty economy, there are alot of people on unemployment who need those tax cuts right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone on unemployment needs a hell of a lot more than a tax cut
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 08:24 PM by ibegurpard
I would venture to say that they could probably use an extension of unemployment benefits which a repeal of those tax cuts could help fund.

on edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Benefits have been extended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virtualobserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. that wasn't really his position
he also favors a restructuring of the tax code as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well,
since my tax cut amounts to about three bucks a week, I don't see how giving it up is going to effect me one way or another. And I'm willing to give up the money if it means getting my country back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Maybe it's only 3 bucks to you,
but to alot of single mothers out there who are raising kids, it's more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I bet those single mothers would rather have health care
for their kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I know some who wouldn't
It's why I brought this up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Why not?
Why would they rather have their tax cuts than healthcare and education and no more unfunded mandates that raise their state and local taxes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Because they get money immediately in their pockets
Not raised taxes and potentially years of waiting on programs that MIGHT happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. So they are idiot Republicans.
Let them vote against their own interests.

AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. A pittance in their pockets.
And when their children get sick no doctors or medicine for them. Ain't we got fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. Single mothers raising kids
are looking around, wondering why they can no longer get food stamps or other government aid. Has something to do with Bush not helping the poor one lick.

And please, don't imply that three bucks means nothing to me. I can only afford to buy clothes at thrift stores, I drive a 13 year old car, and swap extra work for food and medicine. No, I'm not a single mother, but I'm an older American with a husband with a serious chronic illness. I'd say that qualifies me to say that I'm willing to give up the money, which I will gladly do so that we can get back some of the social services that Bush is in the process of dismantling entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Like he himself says,
most middle class Americans would happily trade whatever pittance their tax cut ammounted to (mine's about $60/mo) for health care. I know I would. In fact, I can't wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Would you really?
You would like for your taxes to be raised because Dean MIGHT be able to get universal healthcare? ANd universal healthcare for 18 and under only if I'm not mistaken, no thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Why no thanks?
This politics of the selfish few is really getting out of hand.

Let's bankrupt the government so I can have an extra $35 a month? Is that really where you are coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Raised? You mean put back to where they were under Clinton??
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 08:50 PM by Demobrat
Yes. It's fine. It amounts to $15.00 a week. And even if I don't (gasp) GET MINE, I think it's a small price to pay for universal health care for kids. I don't even have kids. I never wanted them and never will. But I'd rather live in a world where kids can go to the doctor when they get sick than one where they can't. Dr. Dean did it in Vermont and I have no doubt that he do it nationally. And all for $15.00 a week. Go Dean.

Edits for typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. Economy was good under Clinton, people weren't out of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. When I was out of work
I not only had no income, I had no insurance. Which meant that if I got sick or hurt, it didn't matter if I could pay for health care or not, no doctor would see me anyway because I didn't have insurance. As I found out the hard way when my back went out. So I just did without. I think it would be a great blessing to the unemployed to know that if something happened to them or one of their family members, health care would be available. As it is their only choice is to live in fear. And if something happens, well, tough shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Alot of people on unemployment...
...who need those tax cuts right now.

I'm gonna let you reread your own words, and see if you can guess what's missing...

Oh yeah, that's right, a FRICKIN PAYCHECK! THAT'S what's missing. I'm sorry, but alot of people on unemployment need a FRICKEN JOB before they'll have much of an opportunity to be concerned about the perpetuity of their 30 pieces of silver...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Unemployment money is taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. The maximum you can make on unemployment is $12,000 a year.
What tax bracket does that put you in other than the EIC bracket?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. If you're not working, you can't get a tax cut.
Other people have mentioned this, but it is worth repeating.

Also, when asked whether they would rather improve health care or have the Bush tax cuts, we have a 65/25 advantage in the polls. Similar numbers are there even when it comes to *raising* taxes! Dean is politically doing the sound thing. I wonder if even health care is doable, given the hole Bush is putting us into with Iraq. (77 + 87 BILLION so far this year).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. So unemployment checks aren't taxed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. It depends how much you're getting.
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 08:36 PM by poskonig
Also, you only get unemployment for a couple of months. Most people would rather be working, y'think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. What is UP?
And what do the tax cuts have to do with people not working?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. That's what I'd like to know.
We've had trillions of dollars of tax cuts and thousands of job losses.

'UP', an unclear abbreviation, was edited to unemployment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. As much as I want it to, I see no connection
between the tax cuts and the bad economy. If anything, the tax cuts are a RESPONSE to the bad economy. For Dean to run on repealing the tax cuts for those in the middle class is a bad move IMO. If he has to repeal all the tax cuts for healthcare, then reshift spending from another area, so those in the middle don't have their taxes raised in the middle of a recession. JMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Where was the 1993 Clinton recession?
Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes, and we had the greatest economic expansion in American history.

We're getting sick of faith-based economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. They raised taxes on the middle class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Bush cut taxes on the middle class?
LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. It's a RESPONSE?
That's funny, Bush was selling his tax cuts before the economy did a darned thing. Heck, he was selling it before he bought his pig farm right before he started campaigning. Sorry, gonna have to call Bushit on this...

Repeal of the misbegotten Bush economic vision, then we can return to the table to discuss targetted tax cuts for working families and small business...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Not disagreeing
I have yet to hear Dean say he would leave the middle tax cuts alone though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. No, many get it for much longer than 2 months.
And in this economy, the unemployment checks become the only means for income.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. He said he was making the tax code more progressive
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 08:52 PM by Classical_Liberal
so this is just dumb. Kerry was drunk. Furthermore there was nothing middle class about the tax cut, since it didn't benefit them. "Middle Class" is adjective Dean never used in his original statement. That Kerry called it middle class reflects more negatively on Kerry than Dean. People below the poverty line aren't taxed, I would assume that would describe most of the people who are unemployed, who after a year of it, aren't in the middle class anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Everyone knows it lasts for 26 months or longer.
These people would rather be working than insultingly having $300 dollar checks thrown at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. I don't even understand your argument.
$300? That's the utility+car payment for alot of people. The truth is, alot of people CAN'T work right now. The economy is horrible. There aren't any jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I was laid off last winter; don't you *dare* lecture me.
I was raking in the dough during the spring of 2000, and would be happy to see a return to that economy. Three hundred bucks is laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. So should we just shoot them?
Or send them off to war? Maybe we can sell their fat overseas to pay for some more tax cuts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Huh? I'm not the one that wants to raise their taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Bush tax cuts are temporary and set to expire in less than 10 years.
So, according to your logic, Bush has already decided to raise all of our taxes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Show me where Dean says he wants to raise their taxes?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CentristDemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. "Repeal all the Bush tax cuts"
what does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. He's waffled on everything else
why not this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. No he is misquoted and then the misquote is claimed to be a
Waffle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. No, Dean hasn't "waffled on everything else" get your facts
staights before you go around trashing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BansheeBarbie Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
46. No, Because He'll Refuse To Regulate Pentagon Spending
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 09:39 PM by BansheeBarbie
And the money to get children (forget grown ups) health care has to come from somewheres.

Especially since he wouldn't DREAM of doing away with the insurance industry, in favor of a Single Payer Plan.

Edited to remove overly obnoxious comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC